Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (56214)	7/14/1999 3:01:00 PM
From: truedog	Respond to of 67261

to: Johannes Pilch from: truedog Thank you for supporting the things I so feebly tried to explain. I bow to your eloquence.. TD

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (56214)	7/14/1999 4:12:00 PM
From: Achilles	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>To suggest that He overlooked prostitution as sin is quite ridiculous.< I don't believe I made any such suggestion. In any case, I'm unsure why you think that this passage is about prostitution (the woman was caught in adultery, whether she was paid for it is not stated). >they should have also brought before Jesus the guilty man< If the woman was married, the man would also have been guilty of adultery. If she was not married, he was not. (That, at any rate, is my understanding of what adultery meant in the OT.) It seems to me, in any case, that this passage may have something to tell Christians about overly zealous application of OT law?